I’m going to explore this question of who is Australia’s head of State using Hobbes’ Leviathan concept of a Commonwealth.

The Hobbesian concept of a Commonwealth

In terms of the Hobbesian concept of a commonwealth, see the image below;

This is where the term ‘head of state’ comes from. You have a king and a kingdom. It’s a one-to-one relationship; one king for one kingdom, and one kingdom for one king. The King is the head, his subjects make up the body – or the body politic. The King is a representative figurehead for the subjects, he is accountable to them, they pledge allegiance to him, and together they rule over the kingdom.

This is a natural development from original absolute monarchy type arrangements like Pharaohs or emperors. It is a natural development – because absolute dictatorship will not work in the long term. Eventually an absolute ruler will come to power with weaknesses which will be exploited by the ladder-climbers who surround him – these ladder climbers will eventually become the men behind the curtains who use their influence to become de-facto rulers. The figurehead ruler is always looking behind his shoulder for those who envy his position; if he wants to stay in his position he needs to be good at playing the game of appeasing those directly around him. Eventually the absolute ruler becomes subject to the wishes and demands to an increasingly larger number of his subjects through the fear and threat of popular revolution, and he becomes a mere figurehead with a lot of discretionary power that is not often exercised. He is no longer a dictator, but a symbol. A symbolic head on the back of a coin. The true power is then held by all his horses and all his men (the political elite), or alternatively by all of his subjects depending on their inclination for revolution (hello France).

As for the discretionary power of the Crown in practice – if you watch the Netflix series The Crown – you can see how this plays out in a constitutional monarchy. Queen Elizabeth II may have a lot of power on paper, but she can’t do whatever she wants – far from it. It is the political elite ladder-climbers who manipulate from behind the curtains.

The Magna Carta

Under the Hobbesian concept, this head of the commonwealth has a social contract with his subjects and together they hold power over the land (see first image). This social contract concept ties in with the older Magna Carta.

Australia has a special relationship with the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta conjures up an implied social contract between the Australian people and the British Crown. Without this contract dragged out of the cellar – from the subjects’ perspective, Australia is a benevolent penal colony under absolute rule; a constitutional monarchy where the constitution is not created from the authority of popular legitimacy, and one where the Crown has little to no contractual obligations to it’s subjects.

A related point – why doesn’t Australia have a Bill of Rights? Because that would place obligations on some party, and it is not clear in Australia’s case who that party is – whether it be the foreign Crown or the squatter Parliament with no autochthony. Also related – why is Australia one of the few countries with compulsory voting with penalty of fine? Both these points relate because there is no contract between the Australian people and it’s government. There is no consent of the governed; even for the settlers (and certainly not for the colonially occupied).

The ironic thing is that the Magna Carta has not even been paid lip-service in it’s application to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It is laughable to think that there was any such contract made or honored between the native peoples and the imposed Crown.

What is Elizabeth II the Queen of?

Australian citizenship as a concept arose from the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948. A few years later in 1953, Queen Elizabeth II was coronated as the Queen of her domains. So at the time or her coronation, Australians; or British Subjects resident in the Australian colonial states – were simultaneously both British Subjects and fresh Australian Citizens.

The concept of Australians being British subjects was dropped with the Australian Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1984, a couple of years before the Australia Acts were passed.

So in 1953, one Queen was coronated over her single Hobbesian ‘Queendom’; Queen of her British subjects all around the world in the various dominions. What happens if a coronation were to happen now – with Australians supposedly not being British subjects anymore?

The colonial British have warped this concept of a Commonwealth to be more inline with the original leviathan of mythology in the form of a multi-headed beast. Each separate dominion has effectively spawned a new cloned head of the British Empire. There were originally six dominions from the Imperial Conference of 1926 – Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and the Irish Free State. The single kingdom made up of dominions, with one Crown is now a complex arrangement of many cloned, crowned heads.

Australia is also separately described as a commonwealth within itself – with six original states. Along with the new proposed ‘First Nations’ state – will be a seven-headed Hobbesian leviathan – just like mythological seven-headed beasts of the sea. This is even represented on the Australian flag in the Commonwealth Star floating on a British naval ensign – like the seven-headed sea-monster that intends to swallow us up.

If Australia is a Commonwealth in it’s own right – as it claims to be since 1901 – then it should have it’s own head of that Commonwealth. Who, or what position is that head? What is the head of the colonial beast?

An awkward situation

Back to the question asked earlier – what happens if a coronation were to happen now; with Australians not being British subjects anymore? Would her successor need to travel around and have multiple coronations to accommodate the now separate, sovereign “kingdoms”?

Australians are not supposed to be British subjects anymore – British citizens with dual Australian citizenship are not even allowed to stand in Parliament under the way they apply section 44 of the constitution since 2017 (it is no coincidence the dual citizenship saga began shortly after the Uluru Statement was issued – they are working on a pre-planned timeline). The land is not supposed to be under the authority of the British crown anymore – but under the Australian people. Since 1986, it really doesn’t make sense for a foreigner to be crowned the King/Queen of Australia.

There’s another reason why it does not make sense. The Uluru Statement asserts spiritual sovereignty. For that assertion to be properly respected – the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot use his spiritual power to coronate the successor ‘Queen of Australia’. For the archbishop to do so would be in flagrant denial of the spiritual sovereignty declared at Yulara/Uluru. The spiritual sovereigns of the land must be the ones to coronate the King or Queen of Australia. This means Aboriginal people will need to coronate Charles as the King of Australia – an embarrassing and comical proposition. This is why there is such a urgency to get this sorted before the successor is coronated – so give or take – a year or two after Elizabeth II passes.

Who is the Head of State of Australia?

My answer is – the head of state of Australia is a purely abstract and symbolic head called the “Queen of Australia”. Queen Elizabeth II is only acting in this position – but does not own the position. She has NEVER been coronated in this role – she was coronated over her British subjects who reside around the world including in the Australian states.

This newer, abstract, symbolic Australian Crown is separate and distinct to the British Crown. It has it’s own set of autochthonous regalia (eg. the coat of arms with kangaroo and emu). Australia is standing with the back-foot on the British Crown and the forward-walking foot on the Australian Crown – but the weight is still on the leg of the British Crown. Right now it is attempting to shift that weight onto the forward leg, but can’t do so without first fixing the “Aboriginal problem”.

If the Hobbesian head of state; or Australian Crown has obligations to the Australian people – who, or what position holds these obligations?

The Governor General is not the Head of State – it is merely a local proxy for the colonial Crown, with no direct obligation to the Australian people.

Parliament – No one in parliament has an obligation to the Australian people either – their oath is to “Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.” This includes the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister isn’t even a specified role in the Constitution Act (1901).

The British Crown – continues to have an obligation to it’s British subjects through the Magna Carta and other conventions. But the Crown is administratively detached since the Australia Acts (1986), so these obligations are meaningless and not accountable or enforceable (case in point the “Royal” Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody began AFTER the Australia Acts and was effectively ignored for decades). Furthermore – Australians aren’t supposed to be British subjects anymore. No one can explain how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders became British subjects, and/or why obligations under the Magna Carta have been completely ignored in the Aboriginal context despite Australia bragging that it is somehow a foundational document.

The answer to the question of what is the “Queen of Australia” – is a three-way interplay (with a pivot point).

The Australian parliament and institutions (as British crown creations under their written constitutions) are accountable to Queen Victoria and her successors. Queen Victoria and her successors in-turn have obligations to their subjects via the Magna Carta. So Parliament and Australian institutions ARE accountable (albeit indirectly) to the Australian people – via the British Crown as proxy, and with the Magna Carta filling in the missing obligational link.

The “Queen of Australia” as an entity with obligations to it’s subjects – is a representation of this three-pronged entity holding a collective social contract with the Australian people. It’s not a standard “Crown”. It is the British Crown + Australian Parliament and Institutions + the Magna Carta. It is an abstraction.

The Pivot Point

Looking at this abstract “Queen of Australia” as a Hobbesian Head of State, it must also be an abstraction representing not just obligation and social contract – but also the head/personality and the authority of the Australian body polity and of the Australian lands.

The Australian body polity itself does not (yet) include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, thus it does not have true legitimacy of the land. However if the native people agree that they are part of the Australian body politic – the abstraction of the Queen of Australia will in turn inherit their autochthonous power via state “enshrinement” and recognition of that spiritual connection with the land.

In the Uluru Statement it says Aboriginal sovereignty coexists with the sovereignty of the crown. The question is – which crown? I think it means the “Queen of Australia”, or the Head of State, which itself is an ambiguous and pivoting abstraction.

The current position is that the “Queen of Australia” is – the British Crown + Parliament and Aus institutions + the Magna Carta.

The “Queen of Australia” will be pivoted (or the weight of the leg shifted) to become – Aboriginal sovereignty + Parliament and Aus institutions + Magna Carta/Bill of Rights. Aboriginal sovereignty will provide the initial symbolic spark to light the republic fire – and like Cathy Freeman lighting the Olympic cauldron – once lit it will no longer be needed. Aboriginal sovereignty will be neutered and assimilated via outnumbering and mainstreaming into the Australian body politic – which will inevitably happen because the offer made at Yulara was so pathetically weak. The final planned result being Australian peoples’ sovereignty + Parliament and Aus institutions + Bill of Rights. Australia’s institutions can mostly go about their ways, having swapped symbolic authoritative figureheads and become actors in their own authority. The end result looks like a proper, modern democratic republic like France or Germany.

The new head of State will thus be an Australian person chosen by the Australian people, representing the Australian people. The mechanics of how this is decided doesn’t really matter as long as the people are satisfied. Having an Australian Head of State – as an actual person in an actual role – is probably the number one selling point used by the republic campaign.

One good thing about this is – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will finally have basic human rights protected. But it is extremely deceptive, and will legitimise and brush under the carpet the massive theft and genocide that has happened.